Everyone cheats, probably true. But Senna, Prost (and bear in mind, Prost is my favorite driver, above anyone on the grid today) and Schumacher were heroes who cheated, and that matters. A generation of drivers grew up idolizing people who didn't respect the rules: Schumacher almost certainly got his idea for the 1994 and 1997 title finals from seeing Prost do it to Senna and Senna do it (even more blatantly) to Prost a year later.

Forgive me for just focusing on this particular part, but just how did Prost cheat?

Exediron wrote:

I have never held the potential cheating of Benetton against Schumacher - that's against the Benetton engineers. Schumi did cheat in 1994 when he tried to smash Hill off (and also when he overtook him on the formation lap, but that was a silly incident that didn't deserve anywhere near the penalty he got for it).

By the time Schumacher's mind games on the formation lap were reported, it was too late to make him start from the back of the grid. So I would say a 5sec stop and go wasn't too harsh a penalty. Of course, that was forgotten because of the tactics applied by Benetton during and after the race. Schumacher's own eventual penalty was the result of ignoring the black flag. The FIA could not possibly simply let that go.

_________________Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Everyone cheats, probably true. But Senna, Prost (and bear in mind, Prost is my favorite driver, above anyone on the grid today) and Schumacher were heroes who cheated, and that matters. A generation of drivers grew up idolizing people who didn't respect the rules: Schumacher almost certainly got his idea for the 1994 and 1997 title finals from seeing Prost do it to Senna and Senna do it (even more blatantly) to Prost a year later.

Forgive me for just focusing on this particular part, but just how did Prost cheat?

Exediron wrote:

I have never held the potential cheating of Benetton against Schumacher - that's against the Benetton engineers. Schumi did cheat in 1994 when he tried to smash Hill off (and also when he overtook him on the formation lap, but that was a silly incident that didn't deserve anywhere near the penalty he got for it).

By the time Schumacher's mind games on the formation lap were reported, it was too late to make him start from the back of the grid. So I would say a 5sec stop and go wasn't too harsh a penalty. Of course, that was forgotten because of the tactics applied by Benetton during and after the race. Schumacher's own eventual penalty was the result of ignoring the black flag. The FIA could not possibly simply let that go.

Everyone cheats, probably true. But Senna, Prost (and bear in mind, Prost is my favorite driver, above anyone on the grid today) and Schumacher were heroes who cheated, and that matters. A generation of drivers grew up idolizing people who didn't respect the rules: Schumacher almost certainly got his idea for the 1994 and 1997 title finals from seeing Prost do it to Senna and Senna do it (even more blatantly) to Prost a year later.

Forgive me for just focusing on this particular part, but just how did Prost cheat?

Exediron wrote:

I have never held the potential cheating of Benetton against Schumacher - that's against the Benetton engineers. Schumi did cheat in 1994 when he tried to smash Hill off (and also when he overtook him on the formation lap, but that was a silly incident that didn't deserve anywhere near the penalty he got for it).

By the time Schumacher's mind games on the formation lap were reported, it was too late to make him start from the back of the grid. So I would say a 5sec stop and go wasn't too harsh a penalty. Of course, that was forgotten because of the tactics applied by Benetton during and after the race. Schumacher's own eventual penalty was the result of ignoring the black flag. The FIA could not possibly simply let that go.

Everyone cheats, probably true. But Senna, Prost (and bear in mind, Prost is my favorite driver, above anyone on the grid today) and Schumacher were heroes who cheated, and that matters. A generation of drivers grew up idolizing people who didn't respect the rules: Schumacher almost certainly got his idea for the 1994 and 1997 title finals from seeing Prost do it to Senna and Senna do it (even more blatantly) to Prost a year later.

Forgive me for just focusing on this particular part, but just how did Prost cheat?

He turned into Senna when the other car was already alongside. It's the softest of the three, definitely, but I have always believed he did know Senna's car was there and that there was going to be a crash. He was tired of being bullied and divebombed by his teammate, and he wasn't going to put up with it that time.

Cheating might be a strong word for it, but it was certainly somewhat past merely unsporting. The reality was that he'd let Senna get fully alongside him, and no longer had the corner. Senna was already braking as fast as he could - there was nowhere he could go when Prost's car turned in on him.

Everyone cheats, probably true. But Senna, Prost (and bear in mind, Prost is my favorite driver, above anyone on the grid today) and Schumacher were heroes who cheated, and that matters. A generation of drivers grew up idolizing people who didn't respect the rules: Schumacher almost certainly got his idea for the 1994 and 1997 title finals from seeing Prost do it to Senna and Senna do it (even more blatantly) to Prost a year later.

Forgive me for just focusing on this particular part, but just how did Prost cheat?

Exediron wrote:

I have never held the potential cheating of Benetton against Schumacher - that's against the Benetton engineers. Schumi did cheat in 1994 when he tried to smash Hill off (and also when he overtook him on the formation lap, but that was a silly incident that didn't deserve anywhere near the penalty he got for it).

By the time Schumacher's mind games on the formation lap were reported, it was too late to make him start from the back of the grid. So I would say a 5sec stop and go wasn't too harsh a penalty. Of course, that was forgotten because of the tactics applied by Benetton during and after the race. Schumacher's own eventual penalty was the result of ignoring the black flag. The FIA could not possibly simply let that go.

I believe crashing into your opponent is against the rules.

Who are you referring to?

In this particular case it was Prost that broke the rules. Not that I really blame him TBH.

Everyone cheats, probably true. But Senna, Prost (and bear in mind, Prost is my favorite driver, above anyone on the grid today) and Schumacher were heroes who cheated, and that matters. A generation of drivers grew up idolizing people who didn't respect the rules: Schumacher almost certainly got his idea for the 1994 and 1997 title finals from seeing Prost do it to Senna and Senna do it (even more blatantly) to Prost a year later.

Forgive me for just focusing on this particular part, but just how did Prost cheat?

Exediron wrote:

I have never held the potential cheating of Benetton against Schumacher - that's against the Benetton engineers. Schumi did cheat in 1994 when he tried to smash Hill off (and also when he overtook him on the formation lap, but that was a silly incident that didn't deserve anywhere near the penalty he got for it).

By the time Schumacher's mind games on the formation lap were reported, it was too late to make him start from the back of the grid. So I would say a 5sec stop and go wasn't too harsh a penalty. Of course, that was forgotten because of the tactics applied by Benetton during and after the race. Schumacher's own eventual penalty was the result of ignoring the black flag. The FIA could not possibly simply let that go.

I believe crashing into your opponent is against the rules.

Who are you referring to?

In this particular case it was Prost that broke the rules. Not that I really blame him TBH.

One could argue that track position being king, Senna crashed into him.

Honestly, this accident is a grey area, we will never know what exactly both drivers were thinking. But the belief that Prost crashed into Senna deliberately, thus being exclusively blamed for it, is nonsense.

Everyone cheats, probably true. But Senna, Prost (and bear in mind, Prost is my favorite driver, above anyone on the grid today) and Schumacher were heroes who cheated, and that matters. A generation of drivers grew up idolizing people who didn't respect the rules: Schumacher almost certainly got his idea for the 1994 and 1997 title finals from seeing Prost do it to Senna and Senna do it (even more blatantly) to Prost a year later.

Forgive me for just focusing on this particular part, but just how did Prost cheat?

He turned into Senna when the other car was already alongside. It's the softest of the three, definitely, but I have always believed he did know Senna's car was there and that there was going to be a crash. He was tired of being bullied and divebombed by his teammate, and he wasn't going to put up with it that time.

Cheating might be a strong word for it, but it was certainly somewhat past merely unsporting. The reality was that he'd let Senna get fully alongside him, and no longer had the corner. Senna was already braking as fast as he could - there was nowhere he could go when Prost's car turned in on him.

I don't have a copy of the 1989 rules, so I can only ask you what base that on. I will gladly admit I'm still confused by at least one 2017 verdict that somewhat resembles this, in referring to something I can't find in the current rules.

When this was discussed on our forum some time ago, I looked up what Senna published in his book on motor racing. The impression I got, was that he thought that in this particular case, the book ruled against Senna.

_________________Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

He turned into Senna when the other car was already alongside. It's the softest of the three, definitely, but I have always believed he did know Senna's car was there and that there was going to be a crash. He was tired of being bullied and divebombed by his teammate, and he wasn't going to put up with it that time.

Cheating might be a strong word for it, but it was certainly somewhat past merely unsporting. The reality was that he'd let Senna get fully alongside him, and no longer had the corner. Senna was already braking as fast as he could - there was nowhere he could go when Prost's car turned in on him.

I don't have a copy of the 1989 rules, so I can only ask you what base that on. I will gladly admit I'm still confused by at least one 2017 verdict that somewhat resembles this, in referring to something I can't find in the current rules.

When this was discussed on our forum some time ago, I looked up what Senna published in his book on motor racing. The impression I got, was that he thought that in this particular case, the book ruled against Senna.

I don't have a copy of the rules either. However, since I think Senna knew about as much about fair racing as I do about Olympic Swimming, his opinion of whether Prost's move was fair or not doesn't matter the slightest to me. Senna was a bully on track throughout his entire career, and I suppose he might have thought turning in on an opponent was fair racing.

I base my opinion that Prost made an unsporting move purely on my own interpretation of the incident. I believe he realized he had lost the corner and decided to just turn in anyway; I can't believe he didn't know Senna was far enough alongside that it would cause a collision. If you think it was more Senna's fault, I can accept that - Senna certainly deserves some blame for that dive bomb, but Prost should have defended the move earlier if he was planning to. He didn't defend, and just turned in on a car that was already at the limit of adhesion - there was no possible way Senna could brake more, since he was certainly already on the limit of braking to make the corner.

Now just to be clear, what Prost did in 1989 and what Schumacher did in 1994 are not on the same level as what Schumacher did in 1997 or especially what Senna did in 1990. In my opinion, Senna should have been disqualified from the 1990 season and banned for what he did in 1990.

He turned into Senna when the other car was already alongside. It's the softest of the three, definitely, but I have always believed he did know Senna's car was there and that there was going to be a crash. He was tired of being bullied and divebombed by his teammate, and he wasn't going to put up with it that time.

Cheating might be a strong word for it, but it was certainly somewhat past merely unsporting. The reality was that he'd let Senna get fully alongside him, and no longer had the corner. Senna was already braking as fast as he could - there was nowhere he could go when Prost's car turned in on him.

I don't have a copy of the 1989 rules, so I can only ask you what base that on. I will gladly admit I'm still confused by at least one 2017 verdict that somewhat resembles this, in referring to something I can't find in the current rules.

When this was discussed on our forum some time ago, I looked up what Senna published in his book on motor racing. The impression I got, was that he thought that in this particular case, the book ruled against Senna.

I don't have a copy of the rules either. However, since I think Senna knew about as much about fair racing as I do about Olympic Swimming, his opinion of whether Prost's move was fair or not doesn't matter the slightest to me. Senna was a bully on track throughout his entire career, and I suppose he might have thought turning in on an opponent was fair racing.

I base my opinion that Prost made an unsporting move purely on my own interpretation of the incident. I believe he realized he had lost the corner and decided to just turn in anyway; I can't believe he didn't know Senna was far enough alongside that it would cause a collision. If you think it was more Senna's fault, I can accept that - Senna certainly deserves some blame for that dive bomb, but Prost should have defended the move earlier if he was planning to. He didn't defend, and just turned in on a car that was already at the limit of adhesion - there was no possible way Senna could brake more, since he was certainly already on the limit of braking to make the corner.

Now just to be clear, what Prost did in 1989 and what Schumacher did in 1994 are not on the same level as what Schumacher did in 1997 or especially what Senna did in 1990. In my opinion, Senna should have been disqualified from the 1990 season and banned for what he did in 1990.

What Schumacher did in '94 and '97 are the same in my eyes, just he had the benefit of the doubt the first time round. Hindsight, for me, reveals otherwise.

With Senna and Prost..... two wrongs don't make a right, but they wronged each other and then made their peace, and i'm quite happy to leave it at that. Two men who drove each other to greater heights and lower lows than either would have ever contemplated without the other driving them on... for me that's what makes that particular chapter in F1 so enthralling.

_________________http://tsatr.mooo.comThe Sun and The Rain - The reluctant runner.

He turned into Senna when the other car was already alongside. It's the softest of the three, definitely, but I have always believed he did know Senna's car was there and that there was going to be a crash. He was tired of being bullied and divebombed by his teammate, and he wasn't going to put up with it that time.

Cheating might be a strong word for it, but it was certainly somewhat past merely unsporting. The reality was that he'd let Senna get fully alongside him, and no longer had the corner. Senna was already braking as fast as he could - there was nowhere he could go when Prost's car turned in on him.

I don't have a copy of the 1989 rules, so I can only ask you what base that on. I will gladly admit I'm still confused by at least one 2017 verdict that somewhat resembles this, in referring to something I can't find in the current rules.

When this was discussed on our forum some time ago, I looked up what Senna published in his book on motor racing. The impression I got, was that he thought that in this particular case, the book ruled against Senna.

I don't have a copy of the rules either. However, since I think Senna knew about as much about fair racing as I do about Olympic Swimming, his opinion of whether Prost's move was fair or not doesn't matter the slightest to me. Senna was a bully on track throughout his entire career, and I suppose he might have thought turning in on an opponent was fair racing.

I base my opinion that Prost made an unsporting move purely on my own interpretation of the incident. I believe he realized he had lost the corner and decided to just turn in anyway; I can't believe he didn't know Senna was far enough alongside that it would cause a collision. If you think it was more Senna's fault, I can accept that - Senna certainly deserves some blame for that dive bomb, but Prost should have defended the move earlier if he was planning to. He didn't defend, and just turned in on a car that was already at the limit of adhesion - there was no possible way Senna could brake more, since he was certainly already on the limit of braking to make the corner.

Now just to be clear, what Prost did in 1989 and what Schumacher did in 1994 are not on the same level as what Schumacher did in 1997 or especially what Senna did in 1990. In my opinion, Senna should have been disqualified from the 1990 season and banned for what he did in 1990.

1989 hinges on two things: racing etiquette and the absence of a rule that makes the subject of a dive bomb attack, responsible for avoiding the intended accident. Not relishing a possible DNF is what made most drivers, including Prost, give in to Senna's attacks, at least most of the time. Even though they would not have been responsible. Racing etiquette is neither here nor there if not covered by the rules - hence my problem with a clarification by Mr Whiting this year.

Are you saying that what Schumacher did in 1994 is like Prost's reaction to being dive bombed?

_________________Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Are you saying that what Schumacher did in 1994 is like Prost's reaction to being dive bombed?

In my opinion, yes. Both made an impulsive and illegal move when they realized they had lost the lead (and potentially the championship). I believe both drivers knew they would cause a collision.

Now personally, I can excuse one of them a lot more, but I think the incidents were pretty similar: neither driver was prepared to let their rival win, and they both took the other driver out.

I don't recall Prost driving a broken car before being dive bombed by Senna. I also don't recall Hill dive bombing Schumacher (Hill had been blocked from going round the outside). Finally, with Prost still ahead, how could he have lost the lead? Giving in to Senna's bullying would have lost him the lead and potentially the championship. But he didn't give in, though it was clear to see he still instinctively wanted to avoid the accident.

I'm sorry Exediron, I can't see on what basis you liken these two.

Edit: Perhaps this makes my view clearer: instead of taking the other driver out (which I agree is what Schumacher did), Prost accepted the accident Senna was forcing him to avoid. What do you think?

_________________Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Are you saying that what Schumacher did in 1994 is like Prost's reaction to being dive bombed?

In my opinion, yes. Both made an impulsive and illegal move when they realized they had lost the lead (and potentially the championship). I believe both drivers knew they would cause a collision.

Now personally, I can excuse one of them a lot more, but I think the incidents were pretty similar: neither driver was prepared to let their rival win, and they both took the other driver out.

I don't recall Prost driving a broken car before being dive bombed by Senna. I also don't recall Hill dive bombing Schumacher (Hill had been blocked from going round the outside). Finally, with Prost still ahead, how could he have lost the lead? Giving in to Senna's bullying would have lost him the lead and potentially the championship. But he didn't give in, though it was clear to see he still instinctively wanted to avoid the accident.

I'm sorry Exediron, I can't see on what basis you liken these two.

Edit: Perhaps this makes my view clearer: instead of taking the other driver out (which I agree is what Schumacher did), Prost accepted the accident Senna was forcing him to avoid. What do you think?

Both Prost and Schumacher turned in when they new doing so would cause an accident. Post movement was a lot more abnornal. He turned in earlier than he would normally have done. Schumacher's damaged car make his actions a lot more cynical.

Are you saying that what Schumacher did in 1994 is like Prost's reaction to being dive bombed?

In my opinion, yes. Both made an impulsive and illegal move when they realized they had lost the lead (and potentially the championship). I believe both drivers knew they would cause a collision.

Now personally, I can excuse one of them a lot more, but I think the incidents were pretty similar: neither driver was prepared to let their rival win, and they both took the other driver out.

I don't recall Prost driving a broken car before being dive bombed by Senna. I also don't recall Hill dive bombing Schumacher (Hill had been blocked from going round the outside). Finally, with Prost still ahead, how could he have lost the lead? Giving in to Senna's bullying would have lost him the lead and potentially the championship. But he didn't give in, though it was clear to see he still instinctively wanted to avoid the accident.

I'm sorry Exediron, I can't see on what basis you liken these two.

Edit: Perhaps this makes my view clearer: instead of taking the other driver out (which I agree is what Schumacher did), Prost accepted the accident Senna was forcing him to avoid. What do you think?

The incidents don't have to be identical for the drivers to have similar motivations. If Prost turned into Senna, knowing that an accident would ensue but that his title would be protected, then I don't see how that would be different to Schumacher turning into Hill with the same intent. The state of their car(s) aren't strictly relevant.

of course, this all predicated on believing that both Prost and Schumacher knew that their actions would result in an accident and that they did what they did anyway

Are you saying that what Schumacher did in 1994 is like Prost's reaction to being dive bombed?

In my opinion, yes. Both made an impulsive and illegal move when they realized they had lost the lead (and potentially the championship). I believe both drivers knew they would cause a collision.

Now personally, I can excuse one of them a lot more, but I think the incidents were pretty similar: neither driver was prepared to let their rival win, and they both took the other driver out.

I don't recall Prost driving a broken car before being dive bombed by Senna. I also don't recall Hill dive bombing Schumacher (Hill had been blocked from going round the outside). Finally, with Prost still ahead, how could he have lost the lead? Giving in to Senna's bullying would have lost him the lead and potentially the championship. But he didn't give in, though it was clear to see he still instinctively wanted to avoid the accident.

I'm sorry Exediron, I can't see on what basis you liken these two.

Edit: Perhaps this makes my view clearer: instead of taking the other driver out (which I agree is what Schumacher did), Prost accepted the accident Senna was forcing him to avoid. What do you think?

The incidents don't have to be identical for the drivers to have similar motivations. If Prost turned into Senna, knowing that an accident would ensue but that his title would be protected, then I don't see how that would be different to Schumacher turning into Hill with the same intent. The state of their car(s) aren't strictly relevant.

of course, this all predicated on believing that both Prost and Schumacher knew that their actions would result in an accident and that they did what they did anyway

Of course Prost knew an accident would happen. But so did Senna, trying to force his opponent into avoiding it. That's the reason the rules spoke of "[u]causing [/u]an avoidable accident". Likening the two incidents fails since Hill's outside passing attempt had been blocked before trying up the inside. Hill tried both sides, so there was nothing either impossible or over-optimistic about that incident.

The state of Schumacher's car was relevant, in view of what he said about it.

I do think that in both shameful cases, it was the FIA that failed to act like a responsible body. Not much seems to have changed since, which is perhaps understandable from the point of view that F1 is not a sport.

_________________Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Are you saying that what Schumacher did in 1994 is like Prost's reaction to being dive bombed?

In my opinion, yes. Both made an impulsive and illegal move when they realized they had lost the lead (and potentially the championship). I believe both drivers knew they would cause a collision.

Now personally, I can excuse one of them a lot more, but I think the incidents were pretty similar: neither driver was prepared to let their rival win, and they both took the other driver out.

I don't recall Prost driving a broken car before being dive bombed by Senna. I also don't recall Hill dive bombing Schumacher (Hill had been blocked from going round the outside). Finally, with Prost still ahead, how could he have lost the lead? Giving in to Senna's bullying would have lost him the lead and potentially the championship. But he didn't give in, though it was clear to see he still instinctively wanted to avoid the accident.

I'm sorry Exediron, I can't see on what basis you liken these two.

Edit: Perhaps this makes my view clearer: instead of taking the other driver out (which I agree is what Schumacher did), Prost accepted the accident Senna was forcing him to avoid. What do you think?

The incidents don't have to be identical for the drivers to have similar motivations. If Prost turned into Senna, knowing that an accident would ensue but that his title would be protected, then I don't see how that would be different to Schumacher turning into Hill with the same intent. The state of their car(s) aren't strictly relevant.

of course, this all predicated on believing that both Prost and Schumacher knew that their actions would result in an accident and that they did what they did anyway

Of course Prost knew an accident would happen. But so did Senna, trying to force his opponent into avoiding it. That's the reason the rules spoke of "[u]causing [/u]an avoidable accident". Likening the two incidents fails since Hill's outside passing attempt had been blocked before trying up the inside. Hill tried both sides, so there was nothing either impossible or over-optimistic about that incident.

The state of Schumacher's car was relevant, in view of what he said about it.

I do think that in both shameful cases, it was the FIA that failed to act like a responsible body. Not much seems to have changed since, which is perhaps understandable from the point of view that F1 is not a sport.

From the transgressors' perspective there's not an awful lot of difference. As for Senna trying to force his opponent, plenty of drivers do that all the time. Look at Ricciardo on Kimi in Monaco last year. It's not right but it's also not that unusual. Staying on the Ricciardo theme, a good number of his overtakes are dive bombs which rely on the other driver to take avoiding action. I'm not a great fan, but OTOH I don't see him being condemned for it by many on here.I don't think Senna's actions in that particular incident were that reprehensible. At most you could say he was trying an opportunistic move, but the one at fault for the accident was Prost in my view. I don't think you could argue that Senna knew there would be an accident, but IMO it's pretty reasonable to assume Prost would have known

Are you saying that what Schumacher did in 1994 is like Prost's reaction to being dive bombed?

In my opinion, yes. Both made an impulsive and illegal move when they realized they had lost the lead (and potentially the championship). I believe both drivers knew they would cause a collision.

Now personally, I can excuse one of them a lot more, but I think the incidents were pretty similar: neither driver was prepared to let their rival win, and they both took the other driver out.

I don't recall Prost driving a broken car before being dive bombed by Senna. I also don't recall Hill dive bombing Schumacher (Hill had been blocked from going round the outside). Finally, with Prost still ahead, how could he have lost the lead? Giving in to Senna's bullying would have lost him the lead and potentially the championship. But he didn't give in, though it was clear to see he still instinctively wanted to avoid the accident.

I'm sorry Exediron, I can't see on what basis you liken these two.

Edit: Perhaps this makes my view clearer: instead of taking the other driver out (which I agree is what Schumacher did), Prost accepted the accident Senna was forcing him to avoid. What do you think?

The incidents don't have to be identical for the drivers to have similar motivations. If Prost turned into Senna, knowing that an accident would ensue but that his title would be protected, then I don't see how that would be different to Schumacher turning into Hill with the same intent. The state of their car(s) aren't strictly relevant.

of course, this all predicated on believing that both Prost and Schumacher knew that their actions would result in an accident and that they did what they did anyway

Of course Prost knew an accident would happen. But so did Senna, trying to force his opponent into avoiding it. That's the reason the rules spoke of "[u]causing [/u]an avoidable accident". Likening the two incidents fails since Hill's outside passing attempt had been blocked before trying up the inside. Hill tried both sides, so there was nothing either impossible or over-optimistic about that incident.

The state of Schumacher's car was relevant, in view of what he said about it.

I do think that in both shameful cases, it was the FIA that failed to act like a responsible body. Not much seems to have changed since, which is perhaps understandable from the point of view that F1 is not a sport.

True that. The FIAs feeble response in 89 was to give the wronged driver an unprecedented dsq.

I do think that in both shameful cases, it was the FIA that failed to act like a responsible body. Not much seems to have changed since, which is perhaps understandable from the point of view that F1 is not a sport.

True that. The FIAs feeble response in 89 was to give the wronged driver an unprecedented dsq.

Well, they made up for that crap decision by not disqualifying Senna from the 1990 championship after his extraordinarily dangerous attack on Prost.

I've always been bothered by the way they disqualified Senna, and I don't like Senna. DSQ for cutting the track is implausible; there wasn't any real precedent for disqualifying him, unless they had decided he was at fault for the Prost collision. They should have either held him to fault for it and disqualified him for that, or not done it at all. I could also have seen a case for disqualifying him for the push start, but there wasn't any hard and fast rule against that either.

In my opinion, yes. Both made an impulsive and illegal move when they realized they had lost the lead (and potentially the championship). I believe both drivers knew they would cause a collision.

Now personally, I can excuse one of them a lot more, but I think the incidents were pretty similar: neither driver was prepared to let their rival win, and they both took the other driver out.

I don't recall Prost driving a broken car before being dive bombed by Senna. I also don't recall Hill dive bombing Schumacher (Hill had been blocked from going round the outside). Finally, with Prost still ahead, how could he have lost the lead? Giving in to Senna's bullying would have lost him the lead and potentially the championship. But he didn't give in, though it was clear to see he still instinctively wanted to avoid the accident.

I'm sorry Exediron, I can't see on what basis you liken these two.

Edit: Perhaps this makes my view clearer: instead of taking the other driver out (which I agree is what Schumacher did), Prost accepted the accident Senna was forcing him to avoid. What do you think?

The incidents don't have to be identical for the drivers to have similar motivations. If Prost turned into Senna, knowing that an accident would ensue but that his title would be protected, then I don't see how that would be different to Schumacher turning into Hill with the same intent. The state of their car(s) aren't strictly relevant.

of course, this all predicated on believing that both Prost and Schumacher knew that their actions would result in an accident and that they did what they did anyway

Of course Prost knew an accident would happen. But so did Senna, trying to force his opponent into avoiding it. That's the reason the rules spoke of "[u]causing [/u]an avoidable accident". Likening the two incidents fails since Hill's outside passing attempt had been blocked before trying up the inside. Hill tried both sides, so there was nothing either impossible or over-optimistic about that incident.

The state of Schumacher's car was relevant, in view of what he said about it.

I do think that in both shameful cases, it was the FIA that failed to act like a responsible body. Not much seems to have changed since, which is perhaps understandable from the point of view that F1 is not a sport.

From the transgressors' perspective there's not an awful lot of difference. As for Senna trying to force his opponent, plenty of drivers do that all the time. Look at Ricciardo on Kimi in Monaco last year. It's not right but it's also not that unusual. Staying on the Ricciardo theme, a good number of his overtakes are dive bombs which rely on the other driver to take avoiding action. I'm not a great fan, but OTOH I don't see him being condemned for it by many on here.I don't think Senna's actions in that particular incident were that reprehensible. At most you could say he was trying an opportunistic move, but the one at fault for the accident was Prost in my view. I don't think you could argue that Senna knew there would be an accident, but IMO it's pretty reasonable to assume Prost would have known

That's an interesting example, but hardly comparable. Räikkönen was turning in, not closing the door.

The problem is the "definition" of an optimistic move, and who is responsible if it goes wrong. One thing that makes it even more difficult in the case of Suzuka, was the tightness of the chicane. Even now, after a few modifications (2, if I recall correctly), it is still a very difficult point on one of the best tracks in the world.

Whether Senna knew there would be an accident or not is debatable. You might say he didn't, if he had already become used to seeing drivers give in rather than risk an accident. I saw Max Verstappen display a rather similar attitude prior Singapore this year, and I wasn't surprised he failed to get out of the trap he had created himself. Then again, I do believe he failed to see what was happening - contrary to his explanation afterwards.

Goodness, how have we drifted here, from Massa's thoughts?

_________________Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

don't recall Prost driving a broken car before being dive bombed by Senna. I also don't recall Hill dive bombing Schumacher (Hill had been blocked from going round the outside). Finally, with Prost still ahead, how could he have lost the lead? Giving in to Senna's bullying would have lost him the lead and potentially the championship. But he didn't give in, though it was clear to see he still instinctively wanted to avoid the accident.

I'm sorry Exediron, I can't see on what basis you liken these two.

Edit: Perhaps this makes my view clearer: instead of taking the other driver out (which I agree is what Schumacher did), Prost accepted the accident Senna was forcing him to avoid. What do you think?

The incidents don't have to be identical for the drivers to have similar motivations. If Prost turned into Senna, knowing that an accident would ensue but that his title would be protected, then I don't see how that would be different to Schumacher turning into Hill with the same intent. The state of their car(s) aren't strictly relevant.

of course, this all predicated on believing that both Prost and Schumacher knew that their actions would result in an accident and that they did what they did anyway

Of course Prost knew an accident would happen. But so did Senna, trying to force his opponent into avoiding it. That's the reason the rules spoke of "[u]causing [/u]an avoidable accident". Likening the two incidents fails since Hill's outside passing attempt had been blocked before trying up the inside. Hill tried both sides, so there was nothing either impossible or over-optimistic about that incident.

The state of Schumacher's car was relevant, in view of what he said about it.

I do think that in both shameful cases, it was the FIA that failed to act like a responsible body. Not much seems to have changed since, which is perhaps understandable from the point of view that F1 is not a sport.

From the transgressors' perspective there's not an awful lot of difference. As for Senna trying to force his opponent, plenty of drivers do that all the time. Look at Ricciardo on Kimi in Monaco last year. It's not right but it's also not that unusual. Staying on the Ricciardo theme, a good number of his overtakes are dive bombs which rely on the other driver to take avoiding action. I'm not a great fan, but OTOH I don't see him being condemned for it by many on here.I don't think Senna's actions in that particular incident were that reprehensible. At most you could say he was trying an opportunistic move, but the one at fault for the accident was Prost in my view. I don't think you could argue that Senna knew there would be an accident, but IMO it's pretty reasonable to assume Prost would have known

That's an interesting example, but hardly comparable. Räikkönen was turning in, not closing the door.

The problem is the "definition" of an optimistic move, and who is responsible if it goes wrong. One thing that makes it even more difficult in the case of Suzuka, was the tightness of the chicane. Even now, after a few modifications (2, if I recall correctly), it is still a very difficult point on one of the best tracks in the world.

Whether Senna knew there would be an accident or not is debatable. You might say he didn't, if he had already become used to seeing drivers give in rather than risk an accident. I saw Max Verstappen display a rather similar attitude prior Singapore this year, and I wasn't surprised he failed to get out of the trap he had created himself. Then again, I do believe he failed to see what was happening - contrary to his explanation afterwards.

Goodness, how have we drifted here, from Massa's thoughts?

But the point of the comparison, when talking about Senna's (potential) culpability, is not what Räikkönen did, but what Ricciardo did. And his action, to effectively barge his way and force the other driver to take evasive action, was very comparable to what Senna did. In fact, I'd go so far as to say Senna's was less dangerous, since Prost had a run off area to escape to, whereas Räikkönen didn't have that much scope to do anything. But Ricciardo wasn't widely condemned, so why should Senna be? Prost lost claim to that piece of track when Senna muscled his way past and he shouldn't have just turned into him as if he wasn't there.

I'm sure Senna was aware of the risk of an accident, in the same way that Ricciardo must be whenever he tries one of his kamikaze moves. But Prost had a pair of mirrors and it's almost inconceivable that a driver of his calibre wouldn't have known that Senna beat him to the punch in that corner.

You have a point that Senna may have been used to drivers capitulating, in much the same way that Ricciardo seems to rely on other drivers to give up once he starts his move. But the flip side of that coin is that other drivers, including Prost, should have expected such a move from Senna at some point and should have been on the lookout for it. You can't really have one without the other

Everyone cheats, probably true. But Senna, Prost (and bear in mind, Prost is my favorite driver, above anyone on the grid today) and Schumacher were heroes who cheated, and that matters. A generation of drivers grew up idolizing people who didn't respect the rules: Schumacher almost certainly got his idea for the 1994 and 1997 title finals from seeing Prost do it to Senna and Senna do it (even more blatantly) to Prost a year later.

Forgive me for just focusing on this particular part, but just how did Prost cheat?

He turned into Senna when the other car was already alongside. It's the softest of the three, definitely, but I have always believed he did know Senna's car was there and that there was going to be a crash. He was tired of being bullied and divebombed by his teammate, and he wasn't going to put up with it that time.

Cheating might be a strong word for it, but it was certainly somewhat past merely unsporting. The reality was that he'd let Senna get fully alongside him, and no longer had the corner. Senna was already braking as fast as he could - there was nowhere he could go when Prost's car turned in on him.

BIB… That was Senna's mantra. Dive bomb and if you were int he way of "HIS" corner he wouldn't hesitate to crash into you if that's what it meant to teach others the lesson of what it meant to so audacious to be on his preferred line. Such was his arrogance and is what Jackie Stewart was eluding to in the famous interview. It's one thing to go for a gap but when all other drivers steer clear of areas in certain portions of track out of fear they would be crashed out because an arrogant person warned he'd do just that, well then, it's up to that person to figure out how to get past cleanly using excellent driving to do so, rather than to just bull his way through. That's not racing by definition, through and through.

For all his supreme ability Senna was a dick on track and would never bat an eye in telling you he did nothing wrong, even when he purposely did something wrong. At least In his final 2 seasons he had matured enough to realize that he was good enough to do things the right way and watching him in those 2 seasons (for me at least) is upsetting because it leaves one wondering, what if?… he'd just driven that way his entire career. He started out that way but once he got to McLaren his obsession with beating Prost caused him to lose sight of the big picture and his only goal was to beat Prost. While winning was important to him, it took a back seat to beating Prost and he realized that, but perhaps a tad too late.

Everyone cheats, probably true. But Senna, Prost (and bear in mind, Prost is my favorite driver, above anyone on the grid today) and Schumacher were heroes who cheated, and that matters. A generation of drivers grew up idolizing people who didn't respect the rules: Schumacher almost certainly got his idea for the 1994 and 1997 title finals from seeing Prost do it to Senna and Senna do it (even more blatantly) to Prost a year later.

Forgive me for just focusing on this particular part, but just how did Prost cheat?

He turned into Senna when the other car was already alongside. It's the softest of the three, definitely, but I have always believed he did know Senna's car was there and that there was going to be a crash. He was tired of being bullied and divebombed by his teammate, and he wasn't going to put up with it that time.

Cheating might be a strong word for it, but it was certainly somewhat past merely unsporting. The reality was that he'd let Senna get fully alongside him, and no longer had the corner. Senna was already braking as fast as he could - there was nowhere he could go when Prost's car turned in on him.

BIB… That was Senna's mantra. Dive bomb and if you were int he way of "HIS" corner he wouldn't hesitate to crash into you if that's what it meant to teach others the lesson of what it meant to so audacious to be on his preferred line. Such was his arrogance and is what Jackie Stewart was eluding to in the famous interview. It's one thing to go for a gap but when all other drivers steer clear of areas in certain portions of track out of fear they would be crashed out because an arrogant person warned he'd do just that, well then, it's up to that person to figure out how to get past cleanly using excellent driving to do so, rather than to just bull his way through. That's not racing by definition, through and through.

For all his supreme ability Senna was a dick on track and would never bat an eye in telling you he did nothing wrong, even when he purposely did something wrong. At least In his final 2 seasons he had matured enough to realize that he was good enough to do things the right way and watching him in those 2 seasons (for me at least) is upsetting because it leaves one wondering, what if?… he'd just driven that way his entire career. He started out that way but once he got to McLaren his obsession with beating Prost caused him to lose sight of the big picture and his only goal was to beat Prost. While winning was important to him, it took a back seat to beating Prost and he realized that, but perhaps a tad too late.

By current day standards most of Senna's on track behaviour was saintly. He certainly didn't do anything wrong in his attempted overtake at Suzuka in 89. How could he know Prost would move into the side of him before they even got to the corner?

IMO, an overtake isn't a divebomb if the inside driver is making the apex. In that case it's just braking later, and that can be for various reasons.Senna's onboard shows, he was turning in and going to make the apex.

This had nothing to do with arrogance of Senna, but more with Prost trying to make a point but in a pretty ill-conceived way. Senna braked later, was legitimately on the inside and making that corner.

IMO, an overtake isn't a divebomb if the inside driver is making the apex. In that case it's just braking later, and that can be for various reasons.Senna's onboard shows, he was turning in and going to make the apex.

This had nothing to do with arrogance of Senna, but more with Prost trying to make a point but in a pretty ill-conceived way. Senna braked later, was legitimately on the inside and making that corner.

If Prost had followed his line he was going to cut the inside of the corner. He turned in a lot earlier than he would normally have done.

For all his supreme ability Senna was a dick on track and would never bat an eye in telling you he did nothing wrong, even when he purposely did something wrong. At least In his final 2 seasons he had matured enough to realize that he was good enough to do things the right way and watching him in those 2 seasons (for me at least) is upsetting because it leaves one wondering, what if?… he'd just driven that way his entire career. He started out that way but once he got to McLaren his obsession with beating Prost caused him to lose sight of the big picture and his only goal was to beat Prost. While winning was important to him, it took a back seat to beating Prost and he realized that, but perhaps a tad too late.

I completely agree with this, and I'm far from a Senna fan. But I think Prost was in the wrong this time. I understand why he wrecked Senna - he was sick of his crap over the last two years - but I still think he wrecked Senna.

mds wrote:

IMO, an overtake isn't a divebomb if the inside driver is making the apex. In that case it's just braking later, and that can be for various reasons.

I think the essence of a divebomb is braking too late to make the corner normally, but gaining enough distance to put your car alongside the other driver to prevent them from turning in normally either, thus giving you the corner. It's a slower way of taking a corner that is useful only for blocking the driver ahead from turning in. So in that regard, it looks like we agree.

mds wrote:

Senna's onboard shows, he was turning in and going to make the apex.

This part however, I don't agree. Here is the onboard from both drivers:

Go to 23 seconds (I couldn't get the video to start there, sorry).

Here is the moment Senna begins to turn. He isn't going to make the apex, or even the corner; he's turning in reaction to Prost coming across on him, trying to avoid the collision. If he continued to turn on the line you see, he would at best cut the corner badly, but by no means is he going to hit the apex. Senna turns even farther back than Prost, and is on the inside; if Prost turns too early to make the apex, Senna definitely does.

For all his supreme ability Senna was a dick on track and would never bat an eye in telling you he did nothing wrong, even when he purposely did something wrong. At least In his final 2 seasons he had matured enough to realize that he was good enough to do things the right way and watching him in those 2 seasons (for me at least) is upsetting because it leaves one wondering, what if?… he'd just driven that way his entire career. He started out that way but once he got to McLaren his obsession with beating Prost caused him to lose sight of the big picture and his only goal was to beat Prost. While winning was important to him, it took a back seat to beating Prost and he realized that, but perhaps a tad too late.

I completely agree with this, and I'm far from a Senna fan. But I think Prost was in the wrong this time. I understand why he wrecked Senna - he was sick of his crap over the last two years - but I still think he wrecked Senna.

mds wrote:

IMO, an overtake isn't a divebomb if the inside driver is making the apex. In that case it's just braking later, and that can be for various reasons.

I think the essence of a divebomb is braking too late to make the corner normally, but gaining enough distance to put your car alongside the other driver to prevent them from turning in normally either, thus giving you the corner. It's a slower way of taking a corner that is useful only for blocking the driver ahead from turning in. So in that regard, it looks like we agree.

mds wrote:

Senna's onboard shows, he was turning in and going to make the apex.

This part however, I don't agree. Here is the onboard from both drivers:

Go to 23 seconds (I couldn't get the video to start there, sorry).

Here is the moment Senna begins to turn. He isn't going to make the apex, or even the corner; he's turning in reaction to Prost coming across on him, trying to avoid the collision. If he continued to turn on the line you see, he would at best cut the corner badly, but by no means is he going to hit the apex. Senna turns even farther back than Prost, and is on the inside; if Prost turns too early to make the apex, Senna definitely does.

Tbf i don't think Senna is turning for the corner. He's trying to move over to leave as much space as possible for Prost to come across.

Here is the moment Senna begins to turn. He isn't going to make the apex, or even the corner; he's turning in reaction to Prost coming across on him, trying to avoid the collision. If he continued to turn on the line you see, he would at best cut the corner badly, but by no means is he going to hit the apex. Senna turns even farther back than Prost, and is on the inside; if Prost turns too early to make the apex, Senna definitely does.

Tbf i don't think Senna is turning for the corner. He's trying to move over to leave as much space as possible for Prost to come across.

Yes, I would agree (since that's what I wrote). But mds was saying his onboard shows he was going to make the apex, and I don't think it does. The only wheel movement Senna makes is to try and avoid Prost, not turn into the corner. And in fact, since he is quite unsuccessful in avoiding Prost, I suspect he was at the limit of adhesion and the car didn't turn, indicating he was unlikely to make the corner normally. Hence, it was a divebomb.

IMO, an overtake isn't a divebomb if the inside driver is making the apex. In that case it's just braking later, and that can be for various reasons.Senna's onboard shows, he was turning in and going to make the apex.

This had nothing to do with arrogance of Senna, but more with Prost trying to make a point but in a pretty ill-conceived way. Senna braked later, was legitimately on the inside and making that corner.

If Prost had followed his line he was going to cut the inside of the corner. He turned in a lot earlier than he would normally have done.

I agree with this, hence it being an ill-conceived way of trying to make his point. He could have probably picked a better way/time/event to do it.

There is no way that a move from so much behind would ever work. That was a frustrated dive-bombing.

Of course there are ways. E.g. if your tyres are in way better shape, you can brake much later. There are a good number of reasons why one could brake later. Point is, going by what I see I have always thought Senna could have made the corner, even the apex, just fine.

Here is the moment Senna begins to turn. He isn't going to make the apex, or even the corner; he's turning in reaction to Prost coming across on him, trying to avoid the collision. If he continued to turn on the line you see, he would at best cut the corner badly, but by no means is he going to hit the apex. Senna turns even farther back than Prost, and is on the inside; if Prost turns too early to make the apex, Senna definitely does.

Tbf i don't think Senna is turning for the corner. He's trying to move over to leave as much space as possible for Prost to come across.

Yes, I would agree (since that's what I wrote). But mds was saying his onboard shows he was going to make the apex, and I don't think it does. The only wheel movement Senna makes is to try and avoid Prost, not turn into the corner. And in fact, since he is quite unsuccessful in avoiding Prost, I suspect he was at the limit of adhesion and the car didn't turn, indicating he was unlikely to make the corner normally. Hence, it was a divebomb.

The reason I think he was going to make the apex is because he seemed to have slowed down sufficiently to do so. He had slowed down to fully match Prost's speed and I think he was ready to turn in correctly for the apex, but had to make a movement sooner due to Prost turning in way too soon.

Later in the race he does a very similar overtake on Nannini, and makes the apex too.

Here is the moment Senna begins to turn. He isn't going to make the apex, or even the corner; he's turning in reaction to Prost coming across on him, trying to avoid the collision. If he continued to turn on the line you see, he would at best cut the corner badly, but by no means is he going to hit the apex. Senna turns even farther back than Prost, and is on the inside; if Prost turns too early to make the apex, Senna definitely does.

Tbf i don't think Senna is turning for the corner. He's trying to move over to leave as much space as possible for Prost to come across.

Yes, I would agree (since that's what I wrote). But mds was saying his onboard shows he was going to make the apex, and I don't think it does. The only wheel movement Senna makes is to try and avoid Prost, not turn into the corner. And in fact, since he is quite unsuccessful in avoiding Prost, I suspect he was at the limit of adhesion and the car didn't turn, indicating he was unlikely to make the corner normally. Hence, it was a divebomb.

What the picture doesn't show is the speed the cars are travelling at. By the time of the later picture they are travelling quite slowly (F1 terms) and both drivers were going at the same speed. If Prost was going to make the corner then so was Senna.

Bit off topic, like the thread itself really! But what that video reminded me was that Senna got the illegal bump start in the escape road. They didn't just push his car to the side in order to be on a safe place like Prost's, they just kept pushing him for 20-30m until his car, aided by the natural downhill, got the jump start it needed. Cutting the chicane was a stupid reason to DSQ him, the true infraction was the outside help he got.

Thanks to Mod Yellow for splitting this off, and apologies for causing this discussion. It seems worth it, so thanks again!

Zoue wrote:

Fiki wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Fiki wrote:

Zoue wrote:

The incidents don't have to be identical for the drivers to have similar motivations. If Prost turned into Senna, knowing that an accident would ensue but that his title would be protected, then I don't see how that would be different to Schumacher turning into Hill with the same intent. The state of their car(s) aren't strictly relevant.

of course, this all predicated on believing that both Prost and Schumacher knew that their actions would result in an accident and that they did what they did anyway

Of course Prost knew an accident would happen. But so did Senna, trying to force his opponent into avoiding it. That's the reason the rules spoke of "[u]causing [/u]an avoidable accident". Likening the two incidents fails since Hill's outside passing attempt had been blocked before trying up the inside. Hill tried both sides, so there was nothing either impossible or over-optimistic about that incident.

The state of Schumacher's car was relevant, in view of what he said about it.

I do think that in both shameful cases, it was the FIA that failed to act like a responsible body. Not much seems to have changed since, which is perhaps understandable from the point of view that F1 is not a sport.

From the transgressors' perspective there's not an awful lot of difference. As for Senna trying to force his opponent, plenty of drivers do that all the time. Look at Ricciardo on Kimi in Monaco last year. It's not right but it's also not that unusual. Staying on the Ricciardo theme, a good number of his overtakes are dive bombs which rely on the other driver to take avoiding action. I'm not a great fan, but OTOH I don't see him being condemned for it by many on here.I don't think Senna's actions in that particular incident were that reprehensible. At most you could say he was trying an opportunistic move, but the one at fault for the accident was Prost in my view. I don't think you could argue that Senna knew there would be an accident, but IMO it's pretty reasonable to assume Prost would have known

That's an interesting example, but hardly comparable. Räikkönen was turning in, not closing the door.

The problem is the "definition" of an optimistic move, and who is responsible if it goes wrong. One thing that makes it even more difficult in the case of Suzuka, was the tightness of the chicane. Even now, after a few modifications (2, if I recall correctly), it is still a very difficult point on one of the best tracks in the world.

Whether Senna knew there would be an accident or not is debatable. You might say he didn't, if he had already become used to seeing drivers give in rather than risk an accident. I saw Max Verstappen display a rather similar attitude prior Singapore this year, and I wasn't surprised he failed to get out of the trap he had created himself. Then again, I do believe he failed to see what was happening - contrary to his explanation afterwards.

Goodness, how have we drifted here, from Massa's thoughts?

But the point of the comparison, when talking about Senna's (potential) culpability, is not what Räikkönen did, but what Ricciardo did. And his action, to effectively barge his way and force the other driver to take evasive action, was very comparable to what Senna did. In fact, I'd go so far as to say Senna's was less dangerous, since Prost had a run off area to escape to, whereas Räikkönen didn't have that much scope to do anything. But Ricciardo wasn't widely condemned, so why should Senna be? Prost lost claim to that piece of track when Senna muscled his way past and he shouldn't have just turned into him as if he wasn't there.

I'm sure Senna was aware of the risk of an accident, in the same way that Ricciardo must be whenever he tries one of his kamikaze moves. But Prost had a pair of mirrors and it's almost inconceivable that a driver of his calibre wouldn't have known that Senna beat him to the punch in that corner.

You have a point that Senna may have been used to drivers capitulating, in much the same way that Ricciardo seems to rely on other drivers to give up once he starts his move. But the flip side of that coin is that other drivers, including Prost, should have expected such a move from Senna at some point and should have been on the lookout for it. You can't really have one without the other

I agree that Ricciardo barged past Räikkönen, and I admit I have forgotten how I viewed the matter at the time. But since the stewards decided to take no action, we can only wonder what their rationale was. I'm at a loss to explain it. I wonder whether teams and drivers are now so afraid of being seen as weaklings, that they don't dare to protest an illegal move anymore. McLaren protesting the Prost/Senna incident apparently only came about because Benetton was declared the winning team with Nannini at the wheel. Then again, Williams not even protesting Schumacher's crash post-Adelaide might mean there's something else that holds them back. If so, what?

The availability of run-off space should never be a consideration in deciding whether an action follows the rules or breaks them.

If I remember correctly, Prost had been expecting an attack, but had decided Senna was too far back. Knowing how sharp the chicane was back then, I would have agreed. Making the apex isn't a full explanation of why Senna might have made the corner. There was only space for one car at normal speed, and Prost was ahead.

_________________Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Bit off topic, like the thread itself really! But what that video reminded me was that Senna got the illegal bump start in the escape road. They didn't just push his car to the side in order to be on a safe place like Prost's, they just kept pushing him for 20-30m until his car, aided by the natural downhill, got the jump start it needed. Cutting the chicane was a stupid reason to DSQ him, the true infraction was the outside help he got.

I have always agreed that if they were going to DSQ him, the bump start was a much better reason - getting outside assistance to restart his car at least might have been worthy of being excluded from the results, after all, whereas cutting a chicane clearly is not.

Does anyone with a good knowledge of the 1989 rules know if it was actually illegal, however?

If I remember correctly, Prost had been expecting an attack, but had decided Senna was too far back. Knowing how sharp the chicane was back then, I would have agreed. Making the apex isn't a full explanation of why Senna might have made the corner. There was only space for one car at normal speed, and Prost was ahead.

Prost turned in before he normally would, that shows intent. If there was only space for one car, then he didn't really have another option than to turn in behind Senna. Senna was there legitimately and it's not because the outside car has a nose ahead, the inside car should just disappear.

Bit off topic, like the thread itself really! But what that video reminded me was that Senna got the illegal bump start in the escape road. They didn't just push his car to the side in order to be on a safe place like Prost's, they just kept pushing him for 20-30m until his car, aided by the natural downhill, got the jump start it needed. Cutting the chicane was a stupid reason to DSQ him, the true infraction was the outside help he got.

I have always agreed that if they were going to DSQ him, the bump start was a much better reason - getting outside assistance to restart his car at least might have been worthy of being excluded from the results, after all, whereas cutting a chicane clearly is not.

Does anyone with a good knowledge of the 1989 rules know if it was actually illegal, however?

The first thing James Hunt said was that Senna had received outside help, which was not allowed. It was also my immediate reaction. Siao7 is right in bringing this up. Marshals weren't supposed to just keep pushing the car, and I was always amazed drivers were later ready to use the excuse of being in a "dangerous place" if on an escape road, or even the run-off - Schumacher repeatedly did.

_________________Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Bit off topic, like the thread itself really! But what that video reminded me was that Senna got the illegal bump start in the escape road. They didn't just push his car to the side in order to be on a safe place like Prost's, they just kept pushing him for 20-30m until his car, aided by the natural downhill, got the jump start it needed. Cutting the chicane was a stupid reason to DSQ him, the true infraction was the outside help he got.

I have always agreed that if they were going to DSQ him, the bump start was a much better reason - getting outside assistance to restart his car at least might have been worthy of being excluded from the results, after all, whereas cutting a chicane clearly is not.

Does anyone with a good knowledge of the 1989 rules know if it was actually illegal, however?

The first thing James Hunt said was that Senna had received outside help, which was not allowed. It was also my immediate reaction. Siao7 is right in bringing this up. Marshals weren't supposed to just keep pushing the car, and I was always amazed drivers were later ready to use the excuse of being in a "dangerous place" if on an escape road, or even the run-off - Schumacher repeatedly did.

I only remember one Schumacher incident, where he beached it cleverly in a position on a curb to get the help from the stewards.

The outside help was not allowed since the Fangio days if I remember correctly. POB had an article mentioning how Fangio got a win after he got helped get his car back on track by the spectators after going wide on a turn, which should have DSQ him.

It was a much better reason for the FIA to DSQ Senna and save face at the same time. Senna wouldn't have an excuse to be outraged and therefore it may have never fuelled the Senna-Balestre feud (not as much anyway) that led to the 1990 disgraceful behaviours. That little detail may have changed so much, in hindsight of course.